• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Getting Medical Insurance from Your Boss is a Bad Idea

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/getting_medical_insurance_from.html

October 25, 2006
Getting Medical Insurance from Your Boss is a Bad Idea
By John Stossel

According to the new "ABC News" poll on health care, Americans are eager to have the government force employers to provide heath insurance: "Nearly eight in 10 favor a federal requirement that all employers offer insurance to their full-time workers."

Why?! Do our employers pay for our food, clothing, or shelter? If they did, why would that be good? Having my health care tied to my boss invites him to snoop into my private health issues, and if I change jobs, I lose coverage.

Employer-paid health insurance isn't free. It just means we get insurance instead of higher salaries. I'd rather have the cash and buy my own insurance. Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away.

But people think it's something for nothing. In Maryland, the legislature even tried to single out Wal-Mart for a special employee health-insurance mandate. Luckily, the courts struck down that law. It would have some cost workers their jobs, and all of them would have been paid less.

Anyway, insurance is a terrible way to pay for things. It's expensive and wasteful. Some years ago, an insurance CEO said that it costs $35-$50 to process a $25 claim.

Insurance burdens us with paperwork, invites cheating, and, worst of all, creates a moral hazard that distorts incentives. The first question people ask a doctor who recommends a test is not "Do I really need that?" but "Does my insurance cover it?" Insurance raises costs by insulating consumers from medicine's real prices.

Suppose you had grocery insurance. With your employer paying 80 percent of the bill, you would fill the cart with lobster and filet mignon. Everything would cost more because demand would rise and supermarkets would stop running sales. Why should they -- when their customers barely care about the price?

Suppose everyone had transportation insurance. The roads would be crowded with Mercedes. Why buy a Chevy if your employer pays?

We have gotten so used to having "other people" pay for most of our heath care that we routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles. This is another bad idea.

Suppose car insurance worked that way. Every time you got a little dent or the paint faded, or every time you bought gas or changed the oil, you'd fill out endless forms and wait for reimbursement from your insurance company. Gas and mechanic's prices would quickly rise because service stations would know that you no longer cared about the price. You'd become more wasteful: jackrabbit starts, speeding, wasted gas. Who cares? At most you're paying 20 percent of the bill.

Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and LASIK eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop.

The ABC News poll suggests that people understand that. When asked about "consumer-directed plans," "nearly eight in 10 Americans think that allowing people to shop around for their own medical care would be an effective way to control costs." But many people still want a free lunch: "consumer-driven care looks less popular if it's accompanied by the risk of higher out-of-pocket expenses."

Somehow people seem to believe "insured" means free.

This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing.

But America's demand that insurance cover everything from pets to dental work puts us on slide toward bankruptcy.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
You are dead right about the effects of the way health insurance has turned out. It is the major cause of health cost inflation because everyone assumes that someone else is paying for it.

On the other hand, cost are now so far out of control that you are destroyed if you don't have health insurance.

Last week, a fellow that does odd mechanical work for us suffered a heart attack. The took him to the local hospital and they sent him on to Colorado Springs by helicopter. They got him fixed up with some stents and prescriptions and sent him back home. I saw the hospital bills which totaled almost $80,000 and didn't include the doctors or helicopter.

The guy has absolutely has no money. Just a 1967 Chevrolet which is basically junk. Looks like this one is on the taxpayers.

By the way, he is 52 years old.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The only good thing about getting insurance from one's employer is that if you have a large employer, the risks are pooled in a large group. This is the essence of insurance, that risks get pooled and protection against the type of claim cowpuncher just described is handled by the group. It ostensibly does not bankrupt the individual.


Some insurance companies play a game where they limit the group so that when there is a big claim, they can cut the person who has the big claim out of insurance through premium increases instead of allowing a large group to pay for the claims. When insurance companies do this, they get to keep the money you pay in premiums and their investors get rich. It is the same thing that happened in Katrina when insurance companies allowed people to think they were covered for hurricane damages and then denied coverage when the storm surge was a contributing factor. All the premiums paid to them were kept and they didn't pay the claim.

We have a terrible oversight of insurance companies as Katrina has shown. Unfortunately this hits the individual who thought they had coverage and diligently paid for their insurance over the years.

The investors smile all the way to the bank and the individual does not get what he thought he paid for.

On hurricanes, the homeowner must also get flood insurance to cover water damage, which is often not talked about when the insurance company sells the insurance. Thus the individual thinks he has insurance, when in fact there is a huge loophole that lack of oversight of the industry has allowed.

In medical cases, the person who does not have insurance, or who has a sorry policy, either goes bankrupt, is hounded the rest of their life, and or the rest of us pick up this claim.

It is no way to run an insurance business---unless you are a company selling it.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
I tried to get medical insurance for my two employees who both have families.

Found out that the group policies were much more expensive than giving the money to the employees and letting them get the insurance.

I suspect that at least one of them is pocketing the money and going naked. Sure hope nothing goes wrong. Fortunately, he is a few months of qualifing for medicare.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
"Group" policies for small business are a misnomer. The groups are small and fall into the insurance trap I noted above. The risks are not pooled to a great extent.

Medicare is socialized medicine for the old. We already have govt. healthcare and it is Medicare. It is due to go bankrupt way before SS.

Fortunately my family has good medical insurance--for now. I feel sorry for those who don't or think they do and really don't and get caught in the insurance nightmare. I have seen it way too many times. We need better oversight of insurance regulation, but as the farm bureau shows, their money talks more than the interests of the little guy victimized by the industry.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
"Group" policies for small business are a misnomer. The groups are small and fall into the insurance trap I noted above. The risks are not pooled to a great extent.

Medicare is socialized medicine for the old. We already have govt. healthcare and it is Medicare. It is due to go bankrupt way before SS.

Fortunately my family has good medical insurance--for now. I feel sorry for those who don't or think they do and really don't and get caught in the insurance nightmare. I have seen it way too many times. We need better oversight of insurance regulation, but as the farm bureau shows, their money talks more than the interests of the little guy victimized by the industry.

Econ, do you have a problem with Farm Bureau insurance? Or with their policy/issues?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
"Group" policies for small business are a misnomer. The groups are small and fall into the insurance trap I noted above. The risks are not pooled to a great extent.

Medicare is socialized medicine for the old. We already have govt. healthcare and it is Medicare. It is due to go bankrupt way before SS.

Fortunately my family has good medical insurance--for now. I feel sorry for those who don't or think they do and really don't and get caught in the insurance nightmare. I have seen it way too many times. We need better oversight of insurance regulation, but as the farm bureau shows, their money talks more than the interests of the little guy victimized by the industry.

Econ, do you have a problem with Farm Bureau insurance? Other than perhaps, the cost of the policy? Or is it with their policy/issues?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
"Group" policies for small business are a misnomer. The groups are small and fall into the insurance trap I noted above. The risks are not pooled to a great extent.

Medicare is socialized medicine for the old. We already have govt. healthcare and it is Medicare. It is due to go bankrupt way before SS.

Fortunately my family has good medical insurance--for now. I feel sorry for those who don't or think they do and really don't and get caught in the insurance nightmare. I have seen it way too many times. We need better oversight of insurance regulation, but as the farm bureau shows, their money talks more than the interests of the little guy victimized by the industry.

Econ, do you have a problem with Farm Bureau insurance? Other than perhaps, the cost of the policy? Or is it with their policy/issues?

MRJ

No, MRJ, I have no problem with the Farm Bureau's insurance policies. I do have problems with them "representing" the interests of producers when clearly they rig the system just as the NCBA does when it comes to the policy decisions and their political arm. This is a very great distinction. The Farm Bureau represents themselves in these cases, often at the expense of farmers. There are many times the interests are the same but when it comes to the investments Farm Bureau makes, those investments are often at odds with producer interests and it shows up in policy.

MRJ, are you so caught up in some kind of accolades and past history of NCBA that you continue to follow them even though they don't represent the interests of producers when it comes to producers vs. packers?

I saw how you viewed the OIG report which definitely shows this bias. Thanks for finally seeming to read it after all the viewpoints you gave on it before even reading it. It would be nice if you could understand it. But then that may be too much to ask from someone such as yourself.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
"Group" policies for small business are a misnomer. The groups are small and fall into the insurance trap I noted above. The risks are not pooled to a great extent.

Medicare is socialized medicine for the old. We already have govt. healthcare and it is Medicare. It is due to go bankrupt way before SS.

Fortunately my family has good medical insurance--for now. I feel sorry for those who don't or think they do and really don't and get caught in the insurance nightmare. I have seen it way too many times. We need better oversight of insurance regulation, but as the farm bureau shows, their money talks more than the interests of the little guy victimized by the industry.

Econ, do you have a problem with Farm Bureau insurance? Other than perhaps, the cost of the policy? Or is it with their policy/issues?

MRJ

No, MRJ, I have no problem with the Farm Bureau's insurance policies. I do have problems with them "representing" the interests of producers when clearly they rig the system just as the NCBA does when it comes to the policy decisions and their political arm. This is a very great distinction. The Farm Bureau represents themselves in these cases, often at the expense of farmers. There are many times the interests are the same but when it comes to the investments Farm Bureau makes, those investments are often at odds with producer interests and it shows up in policy.

MRJ, are you so caught up in some kind of accolades and past history of NCBA that you continue to follow them even though they don't represent the interests of producers when it comes to producers vs. packers?

I saw how you viewed the OIG report which definitely shows this bias. Thanks for finally seeming to read it after all the viewpoints you gave on it before even reading it. It would be nice if you could understand it. But then that may be too much to ask from someone such as yourself.


Econ, yet again, you offer NO evidence other than your word for your accusations.

You give us no example of the NCBA malfeasance you claim.

I challenge you to show how, when leadership in NCBA changes annually, candidates for office are brought from the state affiliates and interviewed by a diverse group of people before being sent on to the general membership for election, and that general membership has the option of presenting other candidates for election. Also, policy issues start at the local county or area group of cattle producers, work through the state group, the national committee, and are voted on by the general membership; also with option for resolutions from the floor. Finally, officers receive no pay, and not terribly generous funding of their expenses.

Yes, there is an option for changes to be made by phone conference by national and state leaders, when immediate action is needed. Such action goes back to the membership at ensuing meetings.

This system is more inclusive of grass-roots producers, more fair, and far better than decisions made by 'acclamation' of members and passed 'unanimously', IMO, as well as making it more difficult for any one or small group to take control of an organization.

Accolades, while kind of others to make, do not drive my cart! History is important to know so that we may improve the future. Working with packers to solve industry problems is beneficial to us all, whether you admit it or not. E Coli comes to mind. Packers have put tons of money into that problem which NATURE gives us, and preventing its spread in the packing plant is far more than a matter of good practices.

You fail again, to show any proof or any issue where NCBA worked against cattle producers' interests to favor the packers. Innuendo just doesn't cut it, Econ.

Stated previously on Bullsession, I saw plenty of comment about inefficiencies, delays, failures to communicate, and other bureaucratic bungling. I saw NO claims by OIG of willful neglect, NO speculation of reasons for failures........while you are ALL speculation!

You fail to admit that just possibly NCBA's practice of quietly and effective addressing problems rather than putting myriad press releases attacking and speculating on reasons could be more effective in addressing problems with GIPSA. You have not shown any indication that under James Link things ARE changing at GIPSA. Is it that packers hanging from the highest trees is the only thing you will accept as "proof" of fair action, trial not necessary?????

Your little games are tiresome. It's way past time to reveal who you are that you can have all this "knowledge" of evil you claim, put up the evidence, or shut up!


MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Things are NOT changing under James Link. I spoke to him personally some time ago.

It would be real nice if they would address the confidential complaints that lead to the OIG report.



Where is the NCBA's stance on these issues.




....All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men (and women, MRJ) to remain silent.



Prove to me that NCBA and GIPSA nor you have done this, MRJ.



Please bring the proof or go back to your yardwork where I am sure your attention is more conveniently focused and appreciated.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
It's my opinon, since this seems to be about opinions, that MRJ
brings some thoughtful insight to the conversations here.

I think she is a very intelligent woman who is involved in
our industry. She needn't be put down when someone she
asks for facts can't come up with any.

Is it another case of 'shoot the messenger because you
don't like the message?'
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
This is none of my business, except I don't think you need to talk
down to MRJ as you have. She is a very intelligent lady. She and her
husband have probably done more for the cattle industry than most
of us put together. Can't you reply to her in a less abrasive manner?
I never read where she puts anyone down, but rather makes
intelligent post. As an adult you should be able to offer a difference of opinion without belittling someone, I would think.

So let the fireworks begin. :?

Thanks for the advice, fh. As soon as MRJ starts showimg me she and her family are fighting for the producers when it comes to producers vs. packers, I would be glad to heed your advice. Her posts on the OIG report show just the opposite.

Just exactly what has she done for the industry?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
You are quick, Econ 101. As you can see I completely changed my
post.

I don't mind the discourse, FH, it is good to argue the points and occaisonally concede. It is the result of a deeper understanding through dialog. In MRJ's case, she refuses to see facts clearly laid out if she doesn't agree with them and then turns around and accuses me of some personal interests while she herself is full of them. Her accolades from the NCBA notwithstanding, and I think she has exactly what she accuses me of---having blinders on. Mine is partly personal, as is MRJ's ties to the NCBA, but they are also corporate--that is a concern for the rule of law and equality instead of one of corporatism and fascism.

I have seen MRJ's arguments against the OIG report as hypocritical especially when she did many of them without even reading the report. She seems to take the "company line" even without looking at the facts. To me that is dangerous, notwithstanding the former accolades bestowed upon her by the NCBA.

MRJ is bent on the same crime the Catholic Church is guilty of with sex offenders in the church--of supporting the organization blindly without looking at the facts. If MRJ is doing it out of senility, well I can see that and be forgiving. If not, what is the reason?
 

Latest posts

Top